A human evolutionary
(i.e. Darwinian) approach to understanding our
civilisation and the problems now threatening to
put a premature end to it

Human nature and behaviour evolved in and
are thus adapted to life, and the Darwinian struggle for survival
and (reproductive) success, in essentially TWO different
environments: the individual's extended family group (with which
he identified and cooperated, developing strong bonds of
affection, loyalty and commitment) and the environment external
to it (including other, rival, groups of humans) which he feared
and, with members of his own group, one way or the
other, sought to exploit.

With the advent
and development of civilisation, these two environments became
conflated and confounded, the nation state (and, in more recent
times, free-market capitalism) developing to exploit the
confusion and the artificial environment of human society
itself (to the advantage of its most powerful and privileged
individuals and elites), where, perverted and misplaced, but
blinded by familiarity, "success", dependency and our
own rationalisations, the "individual "
continues his struggle for survival and advantage - only now
reduced largely to a struggle for POWER (in the form of MONEY,
social and professional status, etc.), which has the potential,
at least (important from an evolutionary perspective), to greatly
enhance, especially male, reproductive success.

State and economy also serve society,
of course, and we all depend on them; but as a shepherd serves
his flock, i.e. not for the flock's sake (although he may feel
genuine concern for a lost or injured lamb), but primarily for
his own (and/or his employer's) sake, for the meat and wool that
the flock provides (for self-consumption, but primarily, of
course, for the market).

If I am right, this means that our
civilisation, as it has developed and is currently structured,
represents an "evolutionary cul-de-sac", where
the intensity of its self-exploitation, together with its
exploitation of the natural environment, is rapidly driving
it towards its end, the evidence for which is becoming
increasingly apparent, notwithstanding our collective reluctance
to recognise and face up to it.

A lot of detail can (and needs to be)
added to this very brief analysis, but it reveals clearly enough,
I think, the dire situation we are in, not least, because still
unrecognised, on account of the massive taboos (put in place for
historically understandable, but misconceived reasons) against
applying Darwin's BIG idea to human society and civilisation.

It is vitally important to recognise this
fundamentally and inherently exploitative nature of both the
state and the economy (comprising between them the whole
socioeconomic order), which we are deceived - and deceive
ourselves - into believing are there to serve society when they
are not - not primarily! Their primary purpose is to
facilitate society's self-exploitation, to the advantage of some
over others, in what is essentially a perverted, misplaced, but
unrecognised (because disguised and rationalised) continuation of
man's Darwinian struggle, largely reduced to the pursuit of POWER
(money, social/professional status and advantage etc).

Initially, back in the Middle Ages,
exploiters and exploited were easy to distinguish, with
aristocracy and clergy cooperating (and completing, with each
other and amongst themselves) to exploit the mass of society, the
former relying on the "power of the sword", the latter
on the "power of the word", thereby complementing each
other in creating the power structures of the state, which
facilitated their total dominance, control and exploitation of
society at large. Notwithstanding that exploiters and exploited
were in a state of mutual dependency, which is why it was
possible to convince even the exploited that the state was
serving them.

While the power of aristocracy,
especially after the Norman Conquest, was embodied in castles
built on the "physical high ground", the power of the
Church was embodied in its claim to the "moral high ground".
With both the "physical high ground" and the "moral
high ground" in the hands of their oppressors and
exploiters, the exploited peasantry didn't stand a chance.

In modern times, the power, influence and
privileges of these two elites have been greatly reduced
(relatively), displaced by a much broader and more numerous
spectrum of elites in politics, business, finance,
academia, and particular professions (e.g. law, the media),
into and between which there is a great deal of social mobility,
based on "merit" or "talent", which, together
with the concept of "the market", is used to
rationalise and justify the advantages and privileges
(particularly, but not just, in respect to income) they
enjoy (or not). Theoretically, these elites (professions,
industries) are open to anyone to move into and up in, although
in practice, of course, openings are limited and only available
to those with the necessary talent, luck and/or connections
(vitamin C!), fairness and equality having been perverted
(rationalised) to fairness and equality of opportunity/chance,
which, even if it were true, which it is not, would still not
create a just and humane society.

It is very important to keep in mind what
I mention above about civilisation
(organised into states) representing the conflation of two,
originally distinct environments which human nature and behaviour
evolved to respond very differently to, and which results in most
of the confusion, injustice and contradictions relating to
whether an individual is serving or exploiting their society.

Since we all depend on society and the
state (as we once did on our extended family group), obviously we
must all exploit it, in a sense. And because the state has
effectively (also emotionally, in terms of loyalty, etc.) taken
the place of our extended family group, we are expected (and have
an emotional need) to serve it and seek its approval. But at the
same time the state continues to fulfil its original purpose of
facilitating society's self-exploitation. It is not the injustice
of the existing socioeconomic order that is so important,
however, or even its inhumanity, but its inherent
non-sustainability, which must inevitably lead to its
self-destruction.

With the creation of the welfare state,
it has recently become possible for those at the bottom end of
the social hierarchy to exploit society as well, taking unfair
advantage of the various benefits on offer - and who can blame
them, with those at the top of the social hierarchy also taking
unfair advantage, and to much greater effect?

Evidence for the inherently exploitation
facilitating nature of the state is all around us, its
pervasiveness and familiarity making it difficult for us to
recognise; we don't see the wood for trees, as it were. Thus, it
is perhaps better to look back in history to when the state first
arose, created in cooperation between the aristocracy and clergy
to facilitate the exploitation of the rest of society to their
own particular advantage. If historians were better educated in
natural science, particularly biology and Darwin's theory of
evolution, I'm sure it would be quite apparent to them.